1) Japanese economy expanded at a stunning pace from the

1950 through the 1970 to eventually see the country rise to

become the world's second biggest economy in the 80s.
Is there a continuity between pre-war Japan and post-war
Japan and the economic development between the 50s and the
70s?
Some scholars when talking about the Japanese economic development
talk about a growth that actually goes from the 1925 to the 1975. During
this long period the state has always played a key role in the Japanese
economic development. This is also way we may refer as Japan as a
“Developmental State”: because of the role of the state, and because of
Japan's will to develop. Actually, ever since the Meiji Revolution, the
main goal for Japan was to transform into self-sufficient economy in
order to reach the Western powers, this is why we need to go way back in
history to better understand the rapid economic development post-war.
In other words Japan's main goal for many years has always been, in a
way or another, the development. The Great Depression occured in the
1929 required economic development to be overcomed. Preparing for
the war, and fighting the war required economic development. The
reconstruction of Japan post-war required economic development. To
gain indipendence from the US required an economic development.
Therefore while looking at Japan's economy before and after the 1945 we
can see a continuity in the way the economic development is directed,
and more specifically a significant continuity concerning the role of the
state in this economic development. This has been working for so many
year, and was so successful because there is sort of cooperative relation
between the state and the market, which aren't in contrast with each
other, rather are complementary to each other. Also, another important
factor, is that the state doesn't just regularize the competition among
developed industries, but also directly lead the national industries
toward well-defined goals.
Therefore to resume the so called developmental model has been a
feature of Japan's economy way before the 1945, and the state has
always pushed and guided the market, in order to reach the object Japan
wanted to pursuit: its economic development.

2) Why South Korea went through a dictatorship phase while

Japan succesfully implemented democracy after World War II?
And would Korea have transformed from a developing country to a
developed country so rapidly without Pak Chung Hee's so called
“Korean-style democracy”?
Democracy takes time to happen, it must be the result of a long process within
a state. Most importantly a democracy to truly succeed need a country with a
stable and peaceful national environment. Japan already experienced
democracy during the Taisho period, even if it was an unrefined one. Plus
Japan, after the WW2, in spite of the defeat, reached a very stable political
and economic situation compared to Korea. Therefore the change for Japan
towards a democracy wasn't so dramatic.
Meanwhile, after the WW2 South Korea experienced an horrible war that left
the country devasted, the population more divided than ever, and with a
leader, Syngman Rhee, who only acted for its own interest, and cared little
about Korean people and country. Plus, his ambition for personal power was
also in sharp conflict with the politycal system he had been forced to adopt as
the price for continued American support after the 1948: an elective
democracy. But, at that time, Korea knew nothing about democracy. Korea
was actually not ready yet for the democracy. This is why Korea's First
Republic was a failure, it basically only generated more chaos, uprising and
discontent. Furthermore even if the War was over Korea was still a poor and
underdeveloped country. But the situation dramatically changed when Park
Jung-hee took the power in the 60s.He quickly industrialized the nation and
began focusing on an export oriented economy. He helped raising Korean
GDP quite significantly at the time. He worked closely with the huge
conglomerates at the time to to help gain better economic stability through
the interdependence between the state and Chaebol.
Yet we can't deny that his political rule, from 1971 until his assassination in
1979, was harshly dictatorial. Park was a very determined leader, and he was
ruthless against his opposition. But his iron grip allowed him to carry on the
economic development projects at the pace that he demanded. This is also
because Park firmly believed that South Korea was not ready to be a full
democratic nation nor a free nation, and he argued that the poverty of the
nation would make it vulnerable, and therefore to eliminate poverty was the
priority rather than establish a democratic nation.
Even if still today people are divided and while some consider him the
builder of prosperous Korea other accuse him of being a mere cruel and
ambitious dictator, for sure, without his emergence, South Korea would not
have been the wealthy, prosperous and developed nation like it is now, and
that's why we can consider his long-term dictatorship inevitable for Korea’s
further development.